> Vendor Prefixes
> ---------------
>
> Discussed problem of WebKit monopoly on mobile and the consequent
> pressure for other engines to implement -webkit- properties.
> https://wiki.mozilla.org/Platform/Layout/CSS_Compatibility#questions_and_methodology
> Simon Fraser (Apple)
> Tab Atkins, Luke Macpherson (Google)
> Alex Mogilevsky, Rossen Atanassov, Sylvain Galineau (Microsoft)
> David Baron, Tantek Ã‡elik, John Daggett, fantasai Etemad (Mozilla)
> HÃ¥kon Wium Lie, Florian Rivoal (Opera)
> Alan Stearns, Steve Zilles, Vincent Hardy (Adobe)
> Daniel Glazman (Disruptive Innovations)
> Peter Linss (Hewlett-Packard)
> Bert Bos (W3C)
> Koji Ishii, Anton Prowse (Invited Expert)
> Vendor Prefixes
> ===============
>
> tantek: At this point we're trying to figure out which and how many webkit
> prefix properties to actually implement support for in Mozilla
> tantek: We don't consider this a long-term situation. The goal is to open
> up the webkit-specific part of the web to others, same as implementing
> parts of IE-specific web.
Thatâ€™s sad.
> Tab: Given the discussion is about webkit being a monoculture on Mobile, if
> webkit decides to remove a prefix then it's okay for everyone to remove
> prefixes also.
> Florian: Some prefixes will not be dropped by webkit
> glazou: None will be dropped.
â€¦ but many, most or even all will be supported unprefixed if and when theyâ€™re standardized.
> Florian: If something is intended for internal use, then it is proprietary.
> Florian: But once it's encouraged out on the Open Web, it cannot be
> proprietary anymore.
Thatâ€™s why those cases absolutely need different prefixes, and validity scopes.
> alexmog: Once Apple ships -webkit-, it's frozen.
> smfr: It's not necessarily frozen, might be changed.
> alexmog: We will never drop -ms-, or change -ms- behavior.
I believe Microsoftâ€™s commitment to backwards/bug compatibility is unprecedented and unchallenged, but Iâ€™m not so sure thatâ€™s a good thing (only).
> glazou: Unbelieveable we are having this discussion.
I agree, not that it wasnâ€™t necessary, but the style and definiteness surprises me.
You cannot decide on a cure for the current mess, if you donâ€™t agree on how a healthy system should work.
> dbaron: The more we can unprefix, perhaps the less we have this problem.
> tantek: One possible proposal is to only parse other vendors' prefixes in
> conjunction with parsing unprefixed.
Thatâ€™s a minimum requirement. Anything less should not even be considered for discussion.
> glazou: This is replacing standardization by turning one implementation
> into a de facto standard.
Thatâ€™s right. Thereby you lose one major benefit of open standardization, i.e. many brains with eyes, and you lose a major detriment of open standardization, i.e. many brains with mouths.
> smfr: I can take a list of properties we need back and see if we can bring
> it back for standardization
> glazou: In a reasonable timeframe?
> smfr: Yes.
Whatâ€™s a reasonable timeframe: friday, summer, two years ago?
> tantek: I think if you're working on open standards, you should propose
> your features before you implement them and discuss that here.
You absolutely should.
> smfr: We can't do that.
> sylvaing: We can't do that either.
> tantek: We're going to push you to do that sooner and sooner.
> jdaggett: If you're proposing something that's going to be put on a Web
> page, how is that proprietary?
I assume thereâ€™s a bit missing from the minutes, since nobody mentioned â€œproprietaryâ€